OPEN SPACES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT

Summary

A requester sought documentation regarding the appointment of Sarah Corlett to advise Manx National Heritage on developing 'Gifted Land' for residential use. The authority provided email correspondence detailing the fee proposal and site assessment but withheld specific trustee minutes, contracts, and payment records, citing partial exemptions.

Key Facts

• Manx National Heritage engaged Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Limited to prepare a submission for residential development of two fields (Site B and Site C).
• The consultant assessed the sites as unconstrained by flood risk or ecology, recommending their inclusion in the Area Plan for the North and West.
• The engagement was confirmed via email on 27 November 2023 with a target draft submission date of Christmas 2023.
• The FOI response included email chains but excluded Trustee Minutes, Resolutions, Contracts, and Payment details.
• The authority directed the requester to FAQs on the Manx National Heritage website for additional background information.

Data Disclosed

• 2024-07-16
• 2024-08-08
• 08 December 2023
• 27 November 2023
• 23 November 2023
• 22 November 2023
• 3983942
• 648028
• 8 pages
• 2 documents

Exemptions Cited

• Part exempt (specific exemption clauses not detailed in the provided text)

Original Request

Dear Sir or Madam Please can you provide me with all documentation concerning the appointment of Sarah Corlett (SC) of Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Limited to provide a published document to the Cabinet Office concerning specific recommendations to develop "Gifted Land". In particular I wish copies of all Trustee Minutes, Resolutions, Contracts, Payments, Disbursement's, and any other related documents pertaining to the appointment of SC to provide the attached report. Kind Regards, [Requester's name]

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

From: planning@sarahcorlett.com To: Murphy, Shaun Subject: Re: The Grove Date: 08 December 2023 13:45:52 Attachments: APNW Site Manx National Heritage land reduced.pdf image001.png SC258 6419223112719500.pdf PastedGraphic-1.png Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.  Hi Shaun, Please find attached a draft statement to support the designation of the sites for residential development. Let me know what you think. Sarah On 27 Nov 2023, at 17:13, Murphy, Shaun Shaun.Murphy@mnh.im wrote: Hi Sarah   Thank you for submitting your fee quote for undertaking this work and I can confirm that we would like to proceed on this basis.  I’ve attached an Order to cover this, including a provisional allowance for appearance/submission to an inquiry and which we can amend as necessary.    Depending on your current workload, would it be possible to aim say for a first draft of a submission by Christmas?  Is there likely to be any need to contact Cabinet Office for pre-inquiry documentation in advance of having an agreed submission?     Thanks   Shaun   From: planning@sarahcorlett.com planning@sarahcorlett.com Sent: 23 November 2023 16:59 To: Murphy, Shaun Shaun.Murphy@mnh.im Subject: Re: The Grove   Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.  Thanks Shaun.    Both sites look to me to be unconstrained in terms of flood risk and ecology and whilst B is shown as MNT land, that in itself doesn’t make it unsuitable for development and C isn’t shown as having any constraints at all.   As such I think there are good reasons why both sites should be considered suitable for residential use and designation on the Area Plan for the North and West which I understand is progressing to a public inquiry next year. Neither site was proposed so there are no site specific assessments for us to understand why they weren’t included. It might be worth us submitting something sooner rather than later: whilst there isn’t a formal consultation going on at the moment, it might be useful for Cabinet Office to have a heads up that we will be requesting that both sites are included for residential use and who knows, they might even include them in any pre-inquiry modified document.   My fee for preparing a submission for both sites regardless of whether that is submitted now or later,   Any appearance or submission at the inquiry would be on an hourly rate of I will probably be there on behalf of other people whom I am representing so any representation of yourselves would be purely on any submissions made for you.   Let me know if that is acceptable and when you would wish me to start preparing the report.   Thanks   Sarah On 22 Nov 2023, at 12:58, Murphy, Shaun Shaun.Murphy@mnh.im wrote:   Hi Sarah   Thanks – please see attached plan showing fields B and C.    Shaun   From: planning@sarahcorlett.com planning@sarahcorlett.com  Sent: 22 November 2023 12:00 To: Murphy, Shaun Shaun.Murphy@mnh.im Subject: Re: The Grove   Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.  Hi Shaun,    Could you remind me of the sites again as I can’t find your original e-mail with the attachments.   Thanks   Sarah On 22 Nov 2023, at 11:03, Murphy, Shaun Shaun.Murphy@mnh.im wrote:   Hi Sarah   Just following on from our exchange of emails in August, would you please be able to put forward a fee proposal for building a case for zoning of the two fields for residential development?  Given your thoughts below, I’d assume that this would probably be split up on the basis of (a) preparing a written statement for potential submission at a future North Area Plan inquiry and (b) appearing at the inquiry and presenting evidence on MNH’s behalf (c) any other relevant work that you think is appropriate at this stage.   If it would help to discuss this further, please just give either Steve (648028) or myself a call.   Kind regards   Shaun

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Our ref: 3983942 08 August 2024

Dear xxxx

Re: FOI 3983942 – OPEN SPACES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT

We write further to your request dated 16 July 2024, which states:

“Please can you provide me with all documentation concerning the appointment of Sarah Corlett (SC) of Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Limited to provide a published document to the Cabinet Office concerning specific recommendations to develop "Gifted Land”.

In particular I wish copies of all Trustee Minutes, Resolutions, Contracts, Payments, Disbursement's, and any other related documents pertaining to the appointment of SC to provide the attached report.”

Our response to your request is as follows:

We have recently published some background information and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the Manx National Heritage website which we hope will answer many of your queries:
https://manxnationalheritage.im/possible-zoning-of-land-at-the-grove-museum-ramsey/

We would particularly highlight that the land owned by MNH at the Grove Museum and parkland, together with two nearby separate parcels of land (RR011 & RR012), were purchased by the Trust in 1976, having been granted an option to do so by the Gibb sisters exercisable upon the death of the last surviving sister. This land was not ‘gifted’ nor ‘willed’ to MNH, and there are no covenants or other restrictions preventing disposal or development.

Additionally, we provide the following information in response to your specific request:

1) Below extract from a paper for the Manx Museum and National Trust board meeting held on 14 September 2023:

“Progress Report Following the preliminary valuation of the two fields at the Grove which was provided to Trustees at their June 29 meeting initial informal advice has been obtained from a planning consultant.

Page 2 of 5 As is this case with the current development plan, under the draft Area Plan for the North and West, the land in question is designated as “Open Space”. We are advised that with this designation in place, there is a much reduced likelihood of a favourable planning consent being obtained as it would be contrary to the adopted or nascent Plan. Next Steps A public consultation for the draft Area Plan was carried out in 2022 but no timetable has been put forward to date for a Public Inquiry for the draft Plan. The planning consultant has suggested that it may be possible to make representations about the inclusion of these sites as future residential development sites as part of MNH’s submission to the Public Inquiry on the basis that there is now a need for the allocation of additional housing land to meet the Government’s aspirations for future population growth and to increase the Island’s population to 100,000 by 2037. Recommendation Subject to agreeing an acceptable level of fees, it is recommended that MNH engage the Planning Consultant to build a case for the zoning of the land and which MNH may then include as part of a submission to the future Public Inquiry.”

2) Below extract from the signed minutes of the Manx Museum and National Trust board meeting held on 14 September 2023:

3) Attached email exchange dated 08 December 2023 between Sarah Corlett and MNH Properties Manager – Land Use and Sustainability, Shaun Murphy in which terms were agreed for Sarah Corlett’s work for MNH (attached with redactions – s.30 and s.35 qualified exemptions applied – see explanation on page 3)

Filename: 20231208 Re_ The Grove_Redacted.pdf

4) Below extract from an overview report to the Manx Museum and National Trust board meeting held on 14 December 2023:

Page 3 of 5 5) Below text of an email from Head of Properties to Trustees dated 19 January 2024:

“Dear Trustees At the December board meeting it was reported via the Executive Director’s Overview that a planning consultant had been engaged to articulate a case for the zoning of the two outlying Grove fields (approximately 1 ad 2 acres). We now have a finalised report and have been advised that publication of the responses received to the draft plan is expected quite soon therefore I am writing to let you know that we will submit the report next week to ensure that it arrives in time to be considered. In anticipation of this proposal coming into the public domain we will be developing appropriate communications explaining MMNT’s rationale for enhancing the value of the land, together with its future prospective disposal. The report can be viewed here: APNW Site Manx National Heritage land reduced.pdf Please do let me know if you have any queries. Regards, Steve. Steve Blackford Head of Properties”

6) MNH has agreed to pay Sarah Corlett fees up to £960 for her planning consultancy work relating to the Grove property, including her submission to the North and West Area Plan Public Inquiry and appearance in person at the inquiry on behalf of MNH. However, this is currently only an estimate, as the inquiry is ongoing and the exact final costs are not yet known.

Exemptions applied to withheld information under the Freedom of Information Act 2015

Section 30 – economy and commercial interests – qualified exempt commercial information

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the information contained in the relevant documentation which is held by MNH is exempt from disclosure under section 30(2)(b) of the Act as its disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of a person as well as MNH as the public authority holding it. This information is in respect of the specific details of the fees and hourly rates charged to MNH by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Limited and includes any Purchase Orders or invoices held by MNH relating to the subject matter of the FOI request. As section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

Factors in favour of disclosure • There will be public interest in the amount of public or charitable money expended by MNH on making a submission to the Public Inquiry relating to the land at the Grove.

Page 4 of 5 Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption • MNH has disclosed within the answer above the estimated amount which potentially will be spent in this matter, thereby satisfying the public interest. • Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Limited is a small business operating as a sole trader – to disclose hourly rates and specific fees would provide information to direct competitors, thus commercially damaging this small business. • Manx National Heritage relies on maintaining excellent working relations with contractors and suppliers as well as the goodwill of the Manx community. To publicly disclose commercially sensitive details would also damage those positive working relationships which are so vital to our operations as a charity.

In taking these factors into account Manx National Heritage has determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. This information has therefore been withheld in full and has not been included in the disclosed information. Where such information forms part of the disclosed information, details have been redacted out in grey in the documentation supplied – in this case, within the email exchange between Sarah Corlett and MNH Properties Manager – Land Use and Sustainability, Shaun Murphy.

Section 35 – conduct of public business – qualified exempt information

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the information contained in the relevant documentation which is held by MNH is exempt from disclosure under section 35(b)(ii) of the Act as disclosure would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.

This information is in respect of part of the email discussion between the Manx National Heritage Properties Manager – Land Use and Sustainability and our external planning consultant, seeking advice in preparation for the planning submissions to the inquiry.

As section 35 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

Factors in favour of disclosure

• There will be public interest in the general policy and procedures surrounding planning matters in relation to MNH-owned land and the extent to which MNH is effectively carrying out its duties in this regard.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption • The public interest is fulfilled by MNH’s publication of a considerable amount of information regarding this subject. • The risk from disclosure is that full and frank exchanges are no longer held with external consultants whom we appoint to receive independent advice – thereby hindering effective public delivery of MNH’s functions.

Page 5 of 5 In taking these factors into account Manx National Heritage has determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. This information has therefore been withheld from the disclosed information and details have been redacted out in grey in the documentation supplied – in this case, within the email exchange between Sarah Corlett and MNH Properties Manager – Land Use and Sustainability, Shaun Murphy.

Please quote the reference number 3983942 in any future communications. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will now close your request as of this date. Yours sincerely

xxxx xxxx Enc.

For reference: Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your Freedom of Information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review. If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on: 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Infor

[Response truncated — full text is 15,619 characters]